Editorial: Getting to a decision on Keystone XL pipeline

Case to stop pipeline remains strong

A State Department report released last week reinforces prevailing wisdom that President Barack Obama will approve the Canada-to-Texas, Keystone XL pipeline, but that doesn't make it the right call.

The media and industry reaction to the document was swift and incredibly conclusive, homing in on a key finding that the 1,700-mile pipeline wouldn't "significantly exacerbate" the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, which the president has indicated would be a deciding factor in his decision.

Among the reasons cited were the facts that production and processing of crude from Canadian oilsands continues unabated and that alternative means of moving the oil already exist.

The editorial board members at the Wall Street Journal found at least that much of the report to their liking, summing up their position under the headline, "No More Keystone Excuses."

"The fifth environmental report on the pipeline that the State Department published late Friday afternoon ought to be the last word," the editors wrote, "unless President Obama decides to bow again to his rich green funders."

We're less convinced, not having had a lot of time with the 11-volume report nor having seen a lot of independent reporting or criticism of its conclusions.

We remain skeptical of the economic benefits attributed to the pipeline's construction, while we're not at all skeptical of the scientific consensus that climate change is real, is generated by human activity and poses an existential threat to human civilization.

As for the conclusion that the pipeline's construction won't exacerbate the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, we find it difficult to swallow. Tar sands oil is nasty stuff. Making it more economically rewarding to extract and easier to transport can't help but put more of it into the air.

This is far from a done deal. Secretary of State John Kerry will take the next three months to review the findings and comments from various agencies and the public before giving the president a recommendation.

The State Department report notwithstanding, the case for stopping the pipeline remains strong, and we believe it should be far from the last word on this debate. Other views:

The Chronicle Herald

Given the economic benefits to the U.S. in terms of increased jobs, both during and after pipeline construction, and the resulting tax revenues, one would think, as Canadian politicians have argued, that approving the project would be a "no-brainer" for U.S. President Barack Obama. Not to mention the fact the project is also clearly economically important to its close ally on its northern border.

But in spite of Friday's favourable report, the Keystone XL project in question - which would move Alberta crude over the border and down to Oklahoma - still faces fierce headwinds.

Los Angeles Times

Obama should place heavy emphasis on what EPA scientists are telling him; these are the nation's top experts on the environment. And even if the Canadian tar sands extraction would not be, by itself, a devastating new source of greenhouse gases, the Keystone XL would be a sorry symbol of the world's continued reliance on fossil fuels. It would also be a reminder of the ongoing willingness of the U.S. to back long-term efforts to feed that dependence, whether by building a pipeline through the middle of the nation or by approving a risky oil-drilling project off the coast of Alaska (which Royal Dutch Shell PLC put on hold last week, at least for 2014, because of a pileup of legal and logistical obstacles).